DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This action is in reply to the remarks/arguments for Application 18/788,795 filed on 15 December 2025.
Claims 1, 14, and 19-20 have been amended.
Claim 13 has been previously canceled.
Claim 22 has been added.
Claims 1-12 and 14-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
A. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Claims 1-12 and 14-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
1. Applicant argues that the amendments made comprising "determining that a delta between the one or more bids and the hidden threshold is less than a fee that would be captured by an auction platform if a sale were to occur at a price of the one or more bids," "determining, by artificial intelligence, whether the one or more bids are above a threshold likeliness to be a best bid within a predetermined time window," and "automatically squeezing the fee”, describe a specific technological improvement to an auction platform operation that improves the functioning of computer-implemented auction platforms.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The artificial intelligence device recited performs no more than its basic computer function and performs as designed and/or intended to function . In this instance, said artificial intelligence is merely being utilized to automate a business-related decision to adjust (“squeeze”) a fee structure depending on specific circumstances such as “whether the one or more bids are above a threshold likeliness to be a best bid within a predetermined time window” based on inputted instructions and/or predetermined parameters.
Moreover, there are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
2. Applicant further argues that the artificial intelligence-based fee adjustment mechanism recited in amended claims 1 and 14 represents a practical application that improves the functioning of the auction platform technology itself.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Performing steps comprising merely implementing predetermined rules/instructions for determining a time window for an auction, displaying auction postings to one or more bidders, receiving third party financial information, receiving one or more bids, determining a highest bid, withholding money associated with and up to the highest bid, comparing the highest bid against a threshold value, determining the highest bid exceeds a threshold value, ending the auction, executing the auction based on the highest bid, falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Other than the mere nominal recitation of a computer-related device –nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from the organizing human interactions grouping. Accordingly, for these reasons, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A processor”, “communication device”, “artificial intelligence” represent the use of a computer-related devices as a tool (intermediary) to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally
Additionally, there is no actual improvement made to the operations or physical structure of the additional elements claimed – e.g., said artificial intelligence element or device that merely performs as designed and/or intended to function. There are no actual improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and there are no meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment evident in the claims. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
3. Applicant further argues that the combination of limitations recited in claims 1 and 14 amounts to significantly more than facilitating reserve pricing auctions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. When analyzed under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of merely implementing predetermined rules/instructions for determining a time window for an auction, displaying auction postings to one or more bidders, receiving third party financial information, receiving one or more bids, determining a highest bid, withholding money associated with and up to the highest bid, comparing the highest bid against a threshold value, determining the highest bid exceeds a threshold value, ending the auction, executing the auction based on the highest bid using computer computer-related technology and/or devices that merely perform as designed to function. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Hence, the claims are not patent eligible. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
4. Applicant further argues that the "automatically cancelling" mechanism of claim 7 and the "automatically determining selling metrics" with AI/ML-based suggestions of claim 21 represent specific computer-implemented solutions that enhance auction platform functionality beyond generic automation of business processes.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Said “automatically cancelling” and “automatically determining selling metrics” with AI-based suggestions recited in the limitations of claim 7 and claim 21 respectively do not impose a meaningful limitation on the claims’ scope and/or claim limitations that are considered a core or central part of what the applicant invented and, as such, may be defined or interpreted to be insignificant extra-or post-solution activity. Said usage of one or more artificial intelligence techniques is recited in a manner which merely describes general usage and/or application of such techniques or technology to an abstract concept without any improvement to the technology and/or its usage. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
The rejection is therefore maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, independent claim 1 is directed towards facilitating a hidden threshold (i.e., reserve pricing) auction, involving steps which are nothing more than merely implementing predetermined rules/instructions for determining a time window for an auction, displaying auction postings to one or more bidders, receiving third party financial information, receiving one or more bids, determining a highest bid, withholding money associated with and up to the highest bid, comparing the highest bid against a threshold value, determining the highest bid exceeds a threshold value, ending the auction, executing the auction based on the highest bid, which is grouped under the certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles, practices or concepts; following set of instructions; commercial or legal interactions (agreements in the form of contracts; business relations); managing personal behavior of relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions) grouping, in prong one of step 2A.
Claim 1 recites:
“generating a plurality of auction postings on an auction platform, each auction posting including at least a hidden threshold value;
setting an auction timer for each of the plurality of auction postings, the auction timer determining a time window for the auction;
displaying the one or more auction postings to one or more communication device each coupled to one or more bidders;
receiving third party financial information associated with a third party financial institution communicatively coupled to the auction platform for each of the one or more communication devices;
receiving one or more bids from the one or more communication devices, each of the one or more bids having a duration of validity after which each of the one or more bids expires;
determining that a delta between the one or more bids and the hidden threshold is less than a fee that would be captured by an auction platform if a sale were to occur at a price of the one more bids;
determining, by artificial intelligence, whether the one or more bids are above a threshold likeliness to be a best bid within a predetermined time window;
automatically squeezing the fee;
determining a highest bid; automatically withholding from the third party financial institution money up to the highest bid;
comparing the highest bid against the hidden threshold value in substantially real-time;
determining the highest bid exceeds the hidden threshold value;
upon the determination that the hidden threshold value has been exceeded stopping the timer for one of the plurality of auction postings; and
upon expiration of the timer, automatically and immediately executing the auction based on the highest bid;
wherein the hidden threshold value is hidden to the one or more communication device each coupled to one or more bidders.”
Based on the underlined elements above, abstract ideas and/or concepts are identified.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Facilitating reserve pricing auctions subject to set time limits and/or constraints between bidders and sellers is a basic economic and commercial practice and, thus, an abstract idea (Alice Coro. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, Bilski v. Kappos, BuySAFE Inc., v. Google Inc., Ultramercial Inc., v. Hulu, LLC). Because the claim is directed to the performance of financial transactions, it is thus directed to an abstract idea. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A).
Performing steps comprising merely implementing predetermined rules/instructions for determining a time window for an auction, displaying auction postings to one or more bidders, receiving third party financial information, receiving one or more bids, determining a highest bid, withholding money associated with and up to the highest bid, comparing the highest bid against a threshold value, determining the highest bid exceeds a threshold value, ending the auction, executing the auction based on the highest bid, falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Other than the mere nominal recitation of a computer-related device –nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from the organizing human interactions grouping. Accordingly, for these reasons, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A, the additional elements of the claim such as a “processor”, “communication device”, “artificial intelligence” represent the use of a computer-related devices as a tool (intermediary) to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally apply the abstract idea to a particular field of use. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. automate) implement the acts of merely implementing predetermined rules/instructions for determining a time window for an auction, displaying auction postings to one or more bidders, receiving third party financial information, receiving one or more bids, determining a highest bid, withholding money associated with and up to the highest bid, comparing the highest bid against a threshold value, determining the highest bid exceeds a threshold value, ending the auction, executing the auction based on the highest bid.
When analyzed under step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of merely implementing predetermined rules/instructions for determining a time window for an auction, displaying auction postings to one or more bidders, receiving third party financial information, receiving one or more bids, determining a highest bid, withholding money associated with and up to the highest bid, comparing the highest bid against a threshold value, determining the highest bid exceeds a threshold value, ending the auction, executing the auction based on the highest bid using computer computer-related technology and/or devices that merely perform as designed to function. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 14 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1 above and is ineligible for the same reasons. The subject matter of claim 14 corresponds to the subject matter of claim 1 in terms of a system (e.g., machine). Therefore the reasoning provided for claim 1 applies to claim 14 accordingly.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 15-22 add further details and contain limitations that narrow the scope of the invention. However, these details do not result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As explained in the December 16, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance from the USPTO (in reference to the BuySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. decision), further narrowing the details of an abstract idea does not change the § 101 analysis since a more narrow abstract idea does not make it any less abstract.
In all the dependent claims, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also the claims do not affect an improvement to another technology or technical field; the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of a computer system itself; the claims do not affect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In addition, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For these reasons, the dependent claims also are not patent eligible.
Viewed individually and in combination, these additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstraction itself.
Accordingly, the present pending claims are not patent eligible and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Whelchel et al. (US 2007 /0208652 A1) discloses systems and methods of providing online live auctions. In certain embodiments a client bidding module provide simultaneous access to multiple live auction events so that users can participate in several events taking place at the same time. Other embodiments include methods for estimating the time at which a particular lot is likely to be brought to the auction floor for bidding. Other embodiments include a web-based bidding module that provides access to a live auction and provides near real-time updates without needing to refresh the browser web page.
Muse (US 2013/0041773 A1) discloses systems and methods to process online monetary payments
dependent on conditional triggers involving future events. The present invention is a system to process online monetary payments between end-users whose payments are dependent on conditional triggers involving future events, such as winning bids/offers in an auction or a trading exchange. In the system, bids and offers are backed by actual funds which are held in reserve, enabling instantaneous payments upon the close of an event. The system contains methods to be included in online auction and trading exchange software applications. These methods would allow end-users of online auctions and trading exchanges to send and receive payments directly to one another.
Claims 1-12 and 14-22 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Clifford Madamba whose telephone number is 571-270-1239. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 7:30-5:00 EST Alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon, can be reached at 571-272-3602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CLIFFORD B MADAMBA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692